Well-Known Member

Page Tools Email to a friend Printer format Jumana Musa, Amnesty International's legal observer at the Guantanamo Bay military commissions, says the US trial that will hear the case of David Hicks is like an operation where the surgeons have had no training in basic human anatomy.

Ms Musa is visiting Australia to talk to the federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, about the commissions.

She will tell him today that the commissions - set up by the US outside the confines of either its domestic legal system or the Geneva conventions - is "a broken process ... [it] isn't working, and hasn't been working".

"The most important thing people need to understand is there is no amount of good lawyering that can fix this process," she said.

Her visit coincides with the Federal Government coming under increasing pressure over claims by Mamdouh Habib, the Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee who has now been released, that he was tortured while in US custody.

Why did Ms Musa bother coming this far?

Because Australia, she says, is "the only country that seems to have come out and said that the idea of trying somebody, their own citizen, before this process might be OK, and I think that should be a concern to anybody".

Advertisement AdvertisementShe says the British Government refused to let its citizens be subjected to the military commissions unless they met "some kind of basic fair trial standard".

"The fact that all the British detainees have now gone home without being charged, without being brought before these commissions, makes it clear that the commissions were never brought in line with any type of fair trial standards that would satisfy the British," she said.

"If that's the case, they shouldn't satisfy anybody."

Another reason for Ms Musa's visit is to educate.

She says even the military escorts she has had to take with her while at Guantanamo Bay have said, "Really? I didn't realise it was like that", once she has explained to them how the process had been set up. The Prime Minister, John Howard, has stood by his statements of last year that no Australians witnessed or were involved in the interrogation of Iraqi prisoners, despite revelations by a former defence intelligence officer, Rod Barton, to the contrary.

Mr Barton, a former officer with Australia's Defence Intelligence Organisation who was seconded to work with the Iraq Survey Group searching for weapons of mass destruction, told the ABC's Four Corners last night that he was involved in interrogating prisoners at Camp Cropper, near Baghdad airport.

"I have absolutely no reason to doubt the basis on which I made that statement," Mr Howard said.

UFO Hunter

If my family was blown up by people on a mission such as the terrorists of our world, I wouldn't care what happened to them. Call me anything you like but when was the last time a terrorist had a surgion for the people they injured. The biggest problem is keeping people their without charges. Thats all from me.

Member

Um... they haven't proved that the people in question are terrorists yet. That is what the trial is for. They are being punished before they are found guilty of anything. The trial, evidence and access to justice is substandard.

I'm sure there may be small links... but I doubt the people being held are major insurgents. Those would have either killed themselves or would be hidden rather well. It is normally the cronies that cop the worst flak... just those that have been brainwashed and have had little to do with the violence side.

I don't care WHO is under trial. The Nazis got fair hearings by the international community and they methodically killed so many more people. Why treat these people any worse?

Deny basic human rights, and not only are you proving them right and adding to their cause, you are stooping to their level.

UFO Hunter

If I were to stoop to their level, I would strap myself up with explosives, walk into a mall and detonate myself.

If you had have read everything of what I wrote before tyring to persuade my veiw you would have seen this: "The biggest problem is keeping people their without charges."

Other than that, these people do not just get dragged off the street becase they are wearing a turban. The US has bigger fish to fry and quite frankly if they get an answer out of these people who have such diss-respect for human life, who would no sooner kill your child in a jihad, then they are doing a good job.

This issue that has been brough up by Habib is an absolute joke. When you can get back to me as to why he can't explain having terrorist hand books, having frequent trips to Pakistan and Afganhistan whilst living on a pension with several children then I will start to listen. Until then, we have to realise we are working with extremists who have not respect for you or themselves. Hard mesaures must be taken to extract information because they will not listen to 'please.'

Member

Before judging Habib, I suggest you read the decision of the little "cout" they have there.

A mockery!!

So what if he's carring literature etc? There are plenty of people who carry Mao's letters and make frequent trips to China.

Habib himself did not walk anywhere with a bomb strapped to his chest. And remember a bomb on the chest does less damage than a bomb falling from a plane. And honestly, if one big country was invading you... what would you do? Stand and fight? Or just let it happen. True, Seot 11th should not have happened. That was very wrong... but not EVERYONE who believes that the USA is evil is a terrorist. Alot in Guantanamo are really just supporters, not advocates.

Erm, the US let him go if you remember. The let many people go. They let ALL of the UK people go because the govt asked them to. They don't have bigger fish to fry. They are, as always, looking for an easy scapegoat.

And don't you talk to me about disrespect!!! The US is as bad as anyone. Afterall, they were the ones who equipped the Taliban, bombed, poisoned and destrpyed Vietnam, have appaling civilian losses wherever they end up. I mean, they never signed any UN cenvention on human rights.

If you read the records of the UN security council you will find that their invasion of Iraq was (and still is) illegal. They were not there to protect human rights. If you think they are I suggest you talk to Prof Don Rothwell and members of the ICJ.

Winging it

Staff Member

The world is in incredibly difficult times and tough measures are called for. However(!), I won't accept being part of a force that does the same atrocities that we claimed we went in there to stop. For me it is completely wrong and I thought the wars we fought, before this one, were for much higher ideals than are being displayed by us. I am much more than disappointed. All the same the complete ratbags who want to destroy the type of life we take for granted get little or no sympathy from me.

Member

No... I haven't gone out of context. Drew some points that are worth considering that can be considered such. Context is Guantanamo bay and the treatment therein. Surrounding that issue is treatment by the USA generally. While they have fought for noble causes, they have also invaded cause they just damn feel like it and faffed things up big time.

The issue of Guantanamo bay is bigger than Habib. It is about basic human rights and access to justice. The people in that place are not bombers. If you haven't realised, they are still alive.

I actually have the same point of view as MB... but you must remember that those of importance are good. They are not going to be caught by a bunch of dumb soldiers. And Fluffy will tell you how stupid soldiers from the USA are... I can also vouch for that having seen many interviews with those on the front line. Hey, I bet thay are nice guys and doing what they think is right... but there is no way you'd keep the cannon fodder informed.

So those that are planning bombings etc really are not there. And the people that are... are not treated as though they are alive. They are merely objects. I get upset over treatment such as that should it happen to anyone... or anything.

UFO Hunter

So what if he's carring literature etc? There are plenty of people who carry Mao's letters and make frequent trips to China.

Click to expand...

He was found to have the terrorist training handbooks from a terrorist organisation called Lashkar-e-Toiba who operate out of Pakistan. He had also been reported to have offered service to al-Qaeda. He was picked up in a half way house where training terrorists have a place to sleep, eat and be paid.

Habib himself did not walk anywhere with a bomb strapped to his chest.

Click to expand...

I made no comment suggesting he strapped bombs to his chest. You know as well as I do that it was a general description of the kinds of acts undertaken by terrorists. That was taken out of context.

And remember a bomb on the chest does less damage than a bomb falling from a plane. And honestly, if one big country was invading you... what would you do?

Click to expand...

There is no denying that bombs from a plane cause more damage. We should consider our selves lucky that these people do not have access to these sorts of fire-power "YET". I think the defining factor being that a terrorist kills because you are of the western world. Their gods approval of an individual is considered to become greater by undertaking acts to destroy anything from the western world. Whilst I make no excuses for Americas actions, someone has to make a stand. Can you imagine letting these people just go for it.

Stand and fight? Or just let it happen. True, Seot 11th should not have happened. That was very wrong... but not EVERYONE who believes that the USA is evil is a terrorist. Alot in Guantanamo are really just supporters, not advocates.

Click to expand...

Once again I also agree that holding people without charge is not right, and stated that in my argument. Out of context.

And don't you talk to me about disrespect!!! The US is as bad as anyone. Afterall, they were the ones who equipped the Taliban, bombed, poisoned and destrpyed Vietnam, have appaling civilian losses wherever they end up. I mean, they never signed any UN cenvention on human rights.

Click to expand...

The americans helped those in Afganistan liberate themselves from a dictator-ship. They worked beside Osama Bin Laden to help fight off their countries regeim and yes they gave them wepons to do it. Where they went wrong was trying to preach western society whilst liberating these people. It has turned ugly.

If you read the records of the UN security council you will find that their invasion of Iraq was (and still is) illegal. They were not there to protect human rights. If you think they are I suggest you talk to Prof Don Rothwell and members of the ICJ.

You have to remember just because some of these people faught for the taliban doesnt mean they are terrorists. This is their religion, their life, their country, and the US came in and started bombing the **** out of it to get Osama bin laden who wasnt even an afghan, he is a saudi.

Would you not fight for your country if someone was dropping bombs on it?

UFO Hunter

Fair enough. I did swallow the bush bull****. In a weird kind of way though. Their is no right or wrong. But Id imagine all hell would break loose if American started cutting the head of muslims off in their country just because they were there.... peace keeping... anyone really. No side is better than the other and it is war guys. No one wins.

Member

Ok, he was found with lietature. You know, Maoists and Khmer Rouge still walk around with literature ans attend training camps. So do the neo-nazis... Are they not also terrorists? Who says he offered services? Hmmm? The very authorities that want to excuse mistreatment? Sorry but I'm not believing them. WMD was incorrect, what's the difference now? They really are just looking for excuses and someone to blame. Well, you said walking round with a bomb was typical behaviour. If it is typical... well, since Habib did not, he was not a terrorist. Anyways, it isn't typical behaviour. Otherwise most would be dead by now.

Those countries that the USA is/was fighting were originally provided with firepower by the USA, Ironic? All I can say is aren't we lucky howard has his head firmly up Bush's bum. Otherwise they'd attack us too. Please note the sarcasm with the 'aren't we lucky" But I tell you what, if I thought Australia was at threat I'd do my damnest to protect it. And the USA is a big threat to them because they do spead their political and religious agenda.

So invading Iraq is illegal. And int he eyes of the international community, so is arresting their people for fighting back. In fact, most 'suspected terrorists' are captured guerilla fighters. Just read between the lines of the findings.

No, the Americans did not invade Afghanistan originally for that reason. It was power play. A strategic post. And they are ALWAYS trying to spread their beliefs. I HATE having things rammed down my throat so I can only imagine how the Afghanis felt. But the USA supported Bin-bloody-Laden!! They KNEW what he was like. Extremist wanker. They KNEW what torture the people were going to go through (especially the women) and yet they persisted in supporting him. Life was WORSE under Bon Laden. And yet... they still think they can claim the moral high ground.

Member

You know, the ABC were the only reporters allowed in to serbia etc when Kosovo was going on??? Cause they would be the only ones giving the fair view... (there wasn't much to be fair about, I admit... but nevertheless...)